US Election Discussion

Just going to leave this here :
[video=youtube;cPgfzknYd20]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20[/video]

Alright then.

 Spoiler

After I was told a few things today and I researched them to be sure they were in fact real (because they sounded so absurd that I almost couldn't believe it, in most of the cases), I find that I'm more vested in this election than I thought I would be. If Romney loses, there will be a revolution, followed by a World War, and a lot of people are going to die. I'm basing this on a few key things, that alone are terrible, but together amplify each other exponentially.

The first and foremost is the firing of Admiral Gaouette and General Ham; I would be willing to bet you haven't heard of them. They were fired for disobeying direct orders from the Secretary of Defense. They were told to "not escalate the conflict in Benghazi in any way", which included going to the aid of our embassy. That alone is atrocious, but the underlying point I'm making is, this is the straw that broke the military's back, in a sense. If Obama is re-elected and the inevitable civil uprising occurs, they will NOT side with the current administration. And even if the commanding officers are forced into it...

The second part is the current policy that Democrats in general are pushing; they obviously can't get any support behind their absurd idea that absentee ballots from the military overseas can't be counted for being "too easy to manipulate", so they went with the next best thing, in their eyes; all overseas absentee ballots are now being considered as "classified documentation", which in and of itself is perfectly within the law, but this next part is not. ALL absentee ballots will be, before being polled, be REVIEWED by a commanding officer, in the presence of a "specialized government employee". All of the rank and file know this, and NONE of them are happy about it, because what it boils down to is, they are taking this as the administration saying, "we don't trust you to make the right decision, so we will help you do it". I won't go into a huge conspiracy theory about them throwing out all the votes except those for Obama like my friend did, but it's still insulting to say at the very least to the people we are supposed to be supporting. Not to mention to the commanding officers; they are also getting the same message, that they are not to be trusted with things of "such importance" as electoral data.

These two things are the start of the issue; if there is an uprising against the Obama administration in his next term, the military will side with the citizens, not with him. Which wouldn't be a problem in my eyes in the least, except...

The THIRD of the major contributors to an eventual World War if Obama is re-elected is the United Nations. For two reasons. The first is this; if our military will not step in while our government is being overthrown, the United Nations, being the only organization large enough to actually quell an uprising here, WILL. He might even ask for their help, but that's just my own speculation so you can disregard it. I wish they wouldn't, but you know they will, and that's why this is such a big issue; not because they step in, but because of this final piece. The final nail in the coffin is a Bill. You should know of it by now, as it has been an issue of some (not anywhere near enough) debate in the past couple of weeks, and I'm pretty sure it was mentioned even in the presidental debates, though it was summarily ignored by Obama, for obvious reasons. The Bill will allow the U.N. to confiscate guns from Americans. It's obviously more complicated than that, as all Bills are, but that's what it boils down to, and that's the important part for this, not because it's feasible, but because of it's relation to the rest of this argument. You should see the connection, yes? Civil unrest occurs, the U.N. steps in to "help us", but they don't stop at attempting to quell the rebellion, why would they when we've been a thorn in their side for so long? If the Bill saying they can confiscate our guns passes, and they are in essence in control of our entire country, their once laughable attempts to take our weapons becomes an actual threat, a REAL threat, not just a fake one made to scare gun nuts. They can actually come directly to people's homes and take them by force.

How does this all come together, you ask?

The South. I live here, I know these people, I know what they will do to keep their guns. They WILL start a war, they WILL kill EVERY PERSON that attempts to take their guns away. The U.N. is an international organization. Killing members of a foreign military is an act of war. They WILL kill them. In all likelihood, I will take part in this; I have a concealed carry permit, I own guns, and they will not take them from me, at least not alive. If you think that mentality is strange, just remember, the vast majority of the people down here feel the exact same as I do, and regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the fact remains that we would rather commit an international crime than lose our weapons en masse.

Just do the math and put the pieces together. This does not end well, not for anyone.

If you think I'm just talking out of my ass and making these things up, I'll give you the names (if valid) of each argument and you can research them yourself.

-Admiral Gaouette and General Ham are the names of the two men that were fired over Benghazi, as I stated before. Try to read more than one article. Also, have a laugh at the article created by the Iranian government stating that the two generals were working with the Israelis to overthrow the American government.

-Military absentee ballots (sadly, you won't find the part about the post-review, it hasn't been reported on anywhere outside of the military and has a top secret classification still (person I know is a member of DoD, if you are wondering why he would know about it), so if you wish to disregard that small segment of part two based on lack of evidence, go for it; it will still just be commanding officers giving orders and none of the rank and file listening, in that case.)
That being said, the upper levels will not support him either in any case, as was made abundantly clear when this came out a couple of days ago; they even started running an ad against him today for election day, funded entirely by retired generals and admirals of the military.

-United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is the name of the act allowing the United Nations to step in and confiscate guns from us.

There you go, enjoy.

Alright, I disregarded the military absentee part, since all you have is the supposed top-secret from a DoD member who somehow is not supposed to leak information but he still got it anyways.

The Admiral Gaouette and General Ham part is disturbing. Tried Googling it, I really only got third-party sources, did get Fox News and the Washington Post though, which seemed really neutral. This seems interesting though. A conservative website doubting the whole conspiracy theory.

United Nations is not going to do squat to the U.S, even in a military coup. Since when was the last time they did anything important? Also, the military coup is highly unlikely because no matter how annoyed the military feel they're not going to coup. Why? It's just stupid to do. It never happened in American history, unless you count the Civil War, which wasn't really a coup. I don't think the military is going to do a coup because (if) their absentee ballots aren't being counted.

My shirt is saved.

his foreign policy stance has changed since the primaries,

For this point, It doesn't help his case that the majority of the countries outside the USA appear to prefer Obama over Romney.

Alright, I disregarded the military absentee part, since all you have is the supposed top-secret from a DoD member who somehow is not supposed to leak information but he still got it anyways.

I said to disregard the post review by the special operative, not the fact that they are forcing the commanders to post review all of it; the only part that is questionable material is the administration operative being present, the rest is still valid and nearly as offensive to the rights of the lower rank members of the military.

By the way, I'm hoping that the UN will continue to be useless and prove me wrong, but they are not handed an opportunity on a silver platter to disarm the "problem child" of the planet every day.

Just got back from voting.

Long ass line.

Just got back from voting.

Long ass line.

what state?

what state?

Michigan.

Which I guess defaults to Democrat most of the time.. Disregarding our Republican governor.

There's legitimacy to your post flonne, that's all I can tell you. The reasons aren't exactly right and isn't specifically geared towards Obama, but the civil war thing is actually accurate, surprisingly.

I said to disregard the post review by the special operative, not the fact that they are forcing the commanders to post review all of it; the only part that is questionable material is the administration operative being present, the rest is still valid and nearly as offensive to the rights of the lower rank members of the military.

By the way, I'm hoping that the UN will continue to be useless and prove me wrong, but they are not handed an opportunity on a silver platter to disarm the "problem child" of the planet every day.

Bro, if they haven't disarmed Israel/Palestine, they're not going to disarm the United States. If the U.S. is the problem child, then Israel/Palestine is the female druggie who got pregnant at 15 and ran away from home to the Red Light district to make money.

Not to mention I've been looking for sources on the military absentee ballot and the closest thing I've found is that they voluntarily dropped because lack of funds/voter apathy/whatever. Nothing anywhere about Democrats pushing to limit military voting.

Also found another source saying current servicemen are voting Democrats while retired servicemen are voting Republican. Which makes sense sense because, well, do I really have to point out who the retired servicemen served under?

I also agree this is one of your better conspiracy theories though.

So... this is probably a dumb question, and I'd hate to drag you all away from your cooky conspiracies, but how long does the american system generally take to announce the winner after voting closes (... and when is that , for that matter?).

So... this is probably a dumb question, and I'd hate to drag you all away from your cooky conspiracies, but how long does the american system generally take to announce the winner after voting closes (... and when is that , for that matter?).

I suspect tonight around 11pm EST latest being in the morning.

Also found another source saying current servicemen are voting Democrats while retired servicemen are voting Republican.

That's actually pretty odd; 4 of my cousins serve in the military, each at a different base, 3 in the air force and 1 in the marines, and they all say their base will be almost exclusively voting Republican. I mean, sure, maybe a few are lying and are afraid of getting their asses kicked by the overwhelming majority or something like that, but still, it's pretty stacked towards Republican, and those overseas are to an even greater extent than the ones based here.

My honest hope? The Benghazi fiasco is revisited after the election. If Romney gets in and it's done, it will just further discredit Obama, which I'm all for; if Obama gets back in and it's done, he could straight up get impeached over that pomegranate if things go badly.

Unless you think Hillary will take the fall for him. HAH.

That's actually pretty odd; 4 of my cousins serve in the military, each at a different base, 3 in the air force and 1 in the marines, and they all say their base will be almost exclusively voting Republican. I mean, sure, maybe a few are lying and are afraid of getting their asses kicked by the overwhelming majority or something like that, but still, it's pretty stacked towards Republican, and those overseas are to an even greater extent than the ones based here.

My honest hope? The Benghazi fiasco is revisited after the election. If Romney gets in and it's done, it will just further discredit Obama, which I'm all for; if Obama gets back in and it's done, he could straight up get impeached over that pomegranate if things go badly.

Unless you think Hillary will take the fall for him. HAH.

So basically if the Benghazi conspiracy theory is actually true and is a plot by Obama to...(wait, why would he do that again?) I then totally agree with you that he should fall.

Otherwise, Obama 2012.

Glad this thread didn't blow up.

Dropped off my ballot at the Library! That was fun.

I certainly don't like Romney, and I didn't vote for him, but I don't think he is quite deserving of this massive amount of hatred he gets. I don't think the country is going to end, and I don't think moving to Canada is going to do much for you, but what do I know.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney doing AMERICAN THINGS as lil' kids.

happy voting, y'all

I still can't believe Romney is 65. He looks like he's 50, 51 or so. Definitely not 65.

(wait, why would he do that again?)

From the very beginning, the entire premise was he was "selling" Libya as a safe, peaceful zone, thanks in large part to himself. If ANY calls for help from the embassy were to be answered or even acknowledged, that is a clear sign that what he said is not accurate. Being president is, in large part, an egotistical venture, no matter who it is; being proven wrong is something they will go to any length to keep from happening.

So, basically, he took a gamble that this uprising was small and nonconsequential, and he lost that gamble, and the lives of some soldiers and an ambassador. The mortars being present were a clear sign that it was an attack that had been premeditated for days, perhaps even weeks; the video they were scapegoating (which they would never have even seen, it's a warzone and the vast majority of the people over there barely have power, much less computers and internet) had only been out for a few days. Surely you can't believe that it being on September 11th was just a coincidence? His first attempt to cover it was by simply flat ignoring the requests for help, his second was claiming it was because of a video "we" made and therefore entirely our fault (because, hey, we are the brutes for creating a silly video, not them for killing our citizens). At this point, he's kind of just hoping it blows over and flinging as much pomegranate as possible at Romney to make people forget about it, and the news media in this country is lapdog to the Democratic party in general. Again, I don't like either party, but after recent events I've finally been shown a CLEAR "lesser of two evils".

From the very beginning, the entire premise was he was "selling" Libya as a safe, peaceful zone, thanks in large part to himself. If ANY calls for help from the embassy were to be answered or even acknowledged, that is a clear sign that what he said is not accurate. Being president is, in large part, an egotistical venture, no matter who it is; being proven wrong is something they will go to any length to keep from happening.

So, basically, he took a gamble that this uprising was small and nonconsequential, and he lost that gamble, and the lives of some soldiers and an ambassador. The mortars being present were a clear sign that it was an attack that had been premeditated for days, perhaps even weeks; the video they were scapegoating (which they would never have even seen, it's a warzone and the vast majority of the people over there barely have power, much less computers and internet) had only been out for a few days. Surely you can't believe that it being on September 11th was just a coincidence? His first attempt to cover it was by simply flat ignoring the requests for help, his second was claiming it was because of a video "we" made and therefore entirely our fault (because, hey, we are the brutes for creating a silly video, not them for killing our citizens). At this point, he's kind of just hoping it blows over and flinging as much pomegranate as possible at Romney to make people forget about it, and the news media in this country is lapdog to the Democratic party in general. Again, I don't like either party, but after recent events I've finally been shown a CLEAR "lesser of two evils".

Didn't he say he was responsible in that one debate?

Didn't he say he was responsible in that one debate?

If you are referring to what I think you are referring to, then no; in the second debate, he claimed he had stated from the beginning that it was a premeditated act of terrorism, when in fact all that happened was he used the WORD "terrorism" in his speech that night. The moderator, who did such a pisspoor job that it was almost special, backed him up on that, and has since then come back (very recently, past week at most) and said she was in fact wrong to have done so. If you are referring to something else, refresh my memory!

Has anyone noticed how evil Ryan looks? Romney could have picked a better running-mate, but whatever. I'm voting Obama though.